Ompare and contrast immigration policies in two or more countries. Which factors explain the variations?

It is important to use the comparative method throughout the essay please. I must use dependent variables and independent variables. Dependent variable is obviously immigration policy. I would also like a hypothesis you can base on some of the facts i state below. The countries I would like to compare are Canada and Denmark and Japan. The I must explain why they vary in policy independent variables. Certain theories can also be used to explain this: 1) Political Economy immigration policy determined by organised interests. 2) Institutionalism institutions shape policy. 3) Political Opportunity Structures immigration policy determined by party politics (eg far right parties in Denmark preventing immigration). I would also like to use the MSSD method Most similar system design. The independent variable will differ. So… if Canada, Denmark and Japan all have points based systems (which I presume differ in some ways), what is it that may explain this difference? Interest groups? Liberal institutions (courts, bureaucracies, liberal institutions more broadly defined…)? Dynamics of the party system?

In terms of structure:

I would like to have an introduction which defines terms and says what I am going to do in the essay. I would like to introduce my variables, my MSSD Design and my hypothesis. I would then like a bit of a literature review. I would like to include
Freeman, G. P. (1995). Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states.
International migration review, 881-902.
Joppke, C. (1998). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World politics, 50(02),
266-293.
Freeman first distinguishes between three different groups having to do with the timing and circumstances of their first major immigration experiences and the degree to which immigration flows, politics, and policies have been institutionalized. Before speaking about each group, he tries to find a basic model of immigration policies, which fit, in all liberal democracies. He argues there is in general an expansionary bias in the politics of immigration in liberal democracies such that policies tend to be more liberal than public opinion. He mentions there is a barrier to information with a scarcity of official data and as a result the effects of migration tend to be inaccurate and lagged. Public opinion also generally opposes mass migration but they are very restricted and not as organized as those who support expansive immigration. As a result, this minority forms a bilateral influence and has a stronger relationship with those who make policy (client politics). Trends in feelings towards immigration also change due to factors such as economic conditions. The first group talked about is the English-speaking settler societies (USA/Canada), where immigration was integral to their founding and development as nations. They encourage mass immigration and are well institutionalized. The majority of the population feels the government are capable of managing migration flows. The main problem here is the abuse of asylum seekers and significant illegal migration. The second group is states with post colonial and guest worker migrations (UK/France). Here mass immigration occurred when they were already fully developed nation states and WWI and colonialism created unwanted immigration. Dilemmas occurred including state capacity to master immigration and control borders. Violence has risen and extremely right wing parties have had some success. The last group is the new countries of immigration (Spain) who have made the transition from sending to receiving countries. Here there is an absence of any institutional mechanisms for regulation immigration and as a result ethnic minorities are not wanted and racism is present. As time goes on however, we will see a shift to countries adapting.

Joppke gives many reasons as to why this unwanted immigration is accepted and in short, he mentions this is a result of a decline on sovereignty, where countries before would have seen these migrants as aliens. Another reason is due to client politics in liberal states that makes them inherently expansionist vis-a-vis immigrants.

I would like also to keep referring back to the question. The main thing is to be extremely clear as to how your chosen countries help in answering the question.

The most important think as the comparative method, have to keep on comparing and contrasting.